IMPEACH SCALIA - he clearly doesn't understand his job

[bertha katzenengel]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/30/scalia.re.enactment.ap/index.html

snip

Speaking before a packed auditorium at Chapman University, Scalia said he was saddened to see the Supreme Court deciding moral issues not addressed in the Constitution, such as abortion, gay rights and the death penalty. He said such questions should be settled by Congress or state legislatures beholden to the people.

"I am questioning the propriety -- indeed, the sanity -- of having a value-laden decision such as this made for the entire society ... by unelected judges," he said.

snip

Separation of powers - ever hear of it, Tony? :eyes:

[Bill McBlueState]

1. yes, this has to stop

It's one thing to be a conservative justice. There have been conservative justices before, and there always will be. That's not the problem.

The problem is when one of those conservative justices gets paid to speak about why the court he sits on shouldn't be doing what it is constitutionally required to do. This sort of sabotage from within is probably unprecedented.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Once Congress is in the hands of Democrats...

he'll be all about Separation of Powers. You can have faith in that.

[Autonomy]

4. Sorta like his adamant "states' rights" position

except when it comes to installing a Republican president, like in Bush v. Gore. :eyes:

[Autonomy]

3. Scalia's error is in stating that these issues are not addressed

in the Consitution. The spirit of the document is that the system should protect the people from the government, and protect the minority from the majority.

Scalia's position is merely political: by stating that each individual issue is not explicitly addressed, which is a disingenuous position, his political beliefs have a better chance of being manifest. It is the ultimate irony that his "unelected judges" remark is a projection of his conscience because of his politicking from the highest bench.

[ShockediSay]

5. I'm with you and For his impeachment

The purpose of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court as its neutral interpreter, is to put SOME popular majority driven notions, out of bounds for government, e.g. slavery, second class citizenship for minorities, and the like.

On top of this, and a great reason for impeachment, is the federal judicial code ethics requiring that judges avoid even the appearance of partiality. Quacking off with Cheney at somebody else's expense, before deciding Cheney's case, or for that matter, taking the election of 2000 out of the people's hands, are as blatantly violative conduct as I ever hope to see.

As for his being brilliant: big words, recondite references, and convoluted language may impress right wing slingers, but the liberal left learned to recognize bogus bombast for what it is: brilliant bullshit at best.

[chicagiana]

6. issues like ...

...

Issues like "Congress shall pass no law respecting an institution of religion of restricting the free exercise therof." Or "there shall be no religious test for public office".

Or other issues like equal protection. Surely that should be left to state legislatures. And certainly not any rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness (which can be loosely implied to the right to fuck other consenting adults the way you want in the privacy of your home and smoke marijauna).

And Scalia certainly wouldn't want the court involved in vesting corporations with the rights of human beings under the constitution.

Scalia certainly wouldn't want to be involved in the protection of fredom of the press, as he has already sicked his Marshal's on the press to erase tapes of one of his speaches.